1 Tim. 1:13 Although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.

Can someone please explain what is being implied here by this verse, and namely by the phrase because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.

Is Paul saying that the only reason he obtained mercy from God is because he did the things he did ignorantly and in unbelief? Moreover, what does he mean by unbelief? What does this say about those people who do not sin in ignorance or unbelief? Are they not candidates for God's mercy?

So, then, what are we to make of those who sin, not in ignorance, but in full knowledge of the truth? Paul did these things because he did not believe the Gospel of Christ....even so, for those having the knowledge of God's revelation, who sin anyhow, how would this verse apply -- or does it apply at all?

Is Paul saying that the reason why he obtained God's mercy is because he was ignorant? Does he mean willfully ignorant, or misguided?

Please explain -- I'm having mucho trouble with this.

tgallison

Apr 19th 2009, 12:00 AM

1 Tim. 1:13 Although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.

Can someone please explain what is being implied here by this verse, and namely by the phrase because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.

Is Paul saying that the only reason he obtained mercy from God is because he did the things he did ignorantly and in unbelief? Moreover, what does he mean by unbelief? What does this say about those people who do not sin in ignorance or unbelief? Are they not candidates for God's mercy?

So, then, what are we to make of those who sin, not in ignorance, but in full knowledge of the truth? Paul did these things because he did not believe the Gospel of Christ....even so, for those having the knowledge of God's revelation, who sin anyhow, how would this verse apply -- or does it apply at all?

Is Paul saying that the reason why he obtained God's mercy is because he was ignorant? Does he mean willfully ignorant, or misguided?

Please explain -- I'm having mucho trouble with this.

Paul obtained God's mercy not because he was ignorant, but because with all his heart and soul he tried to please God. He had studied God's word from a youth and then sat at the feet of Gamaliel, no small accomplishment.

Everything he did, he did for God, yet he lacked one thing, a witness to testify of Christ. Paul had righteousness, but it was not God's.

In many ways he depicts Job. When Job was sent the witness Elihu, he repented. In like manner Paul repented when he received a witness. Paul was favored in that his witness was Christ.

Best regards, Terrell

Equipped_4_Love

Apr 19th 2009, 12:04 AM

So, then, what is meant by the phrase because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief?

I understand what you are saying that he tried to please God, but it sounds to me like he's saying that the reason God had such mercy on him was because he was ignorantly trying to please God?

Is this really why God decided to have mercy on him? I know that God says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy -- but is this verse a clue as to why God has mercy on some, and not others?

jayne

Apr 19th 2009, 12:23 AM

Hi, Welder....

Here's my understanding on verse 13.

Verse 3: Paul reminds Timothy that even though he is going to Macedonia, it is vital that Timothy stay in Ephesus. Why? Because some believers there are teaching a false teaching and he wants Timothy to correct them and put a stop to it.

Verses 4-7: These Christians have apparently gotten way off track and stopped preaching the gospel and started arguing and having mindless discussions on the law, genealogies, and other controversial issues that were only causing discord among the brethren and not edifying the faithful. They were doing this because they wanted to be known as "great teachers". They have lost sight of what they should be doing.

Verses 8-11: Paul admits that the law and the study of it does serve a purpose. It's to show you how sinful one is and how one's sin keeps one opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and that he, himself, has been entrusted to share that gospel.

Verses 12-14: Paul is grateful that Jesus found him, enabled him, and made him to be faithful. Not to make it sound as if he thinks he is above these believers who have strayed from teaching what is important, he reminds Timothy that he also once did terrible things and believed it to be the right thing. But he tells Timothy that unlike these men he is talking about, he (Paul) did the wrong thing out of ignorance and unbelief. These guys are believers and should know better. He is not excusing himself. He finally tells Timothy that the grace of Jesus Christ far exceeded his own grievous and personal sin.

He is saying to Timothy that these men need to be changed (renewed) in their belief. They need to grow up and stop playing "I'm smarter than you" games and concentrate on the true message of the gospel.

He was changed (saved) in his unbelief. And he is grateful for it.

It's not "because" as in "I got a free pass because I was an ignorant unbeliever." It's "because" as in "Because I was an ignorant unbeliever, God showed mercy to me."

tgallison

Apr 19th 2009, 12:47 AM

So, then, what is meant by the phrase because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief?

I understand what you are saying that he tried to please God, but it sounds to me like he's saying that the reason God had such mercy on him was because he was ignorantly trying to please God?

Is this really why God decided to have mercy on him? I know that God says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy -- but is this verse a clue as to why God has mercy on some, and not others?

If you read verse 12, you hear Paul saying, that he thanked Jesus for enabling him, or strengthening him. And the reason was that Paul was faithful, or trustworthy. And because Paul was faithful toward God, Jesus put him in the ministry.

It was not whether Paul was doing right or wrong, but the fact that his heart was right toward God. If your heart is right with God, he will lead you in the right direction, whether saved, or unsaved. If unsaved He will lead you to salvation.

It wasn't the fact that he was doing something in ignorance. If he had been killing Christians in ignorance, but had no heart toward God, he would'nt have been called.

Terrell

Equipped_4_Love

Apr 19th 2009, 01:27 AM

Verses 8-11: Paul admits that the law and the study of it does serve a purpose. It's to show you how sinful one is and how one's sin keeps one opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and that he, himself, has been entrusted to share that gospel.

Verses 12-14: Paul is grateful that Jesus found him, enabled him, and made him to be faithful. Not to make it sound as if he thinks he is above these believers who have strayed from teaching what is important, he reminds Timothy that he also once did terrible things and believed it to be the right thing. But he tells Timothy that unlike these men he is talking about, he (Paul) did the wrong thing out of ignorance and unbelief. These guys are believers and should know better. He is not excusing himself. He finally tells Timothy that the grace of Jesus Christ far exceeded his own grievous and personal sin.

He is saying to Timothy that these men need to be changed (renewed) in their belief. They need to grow up and stop playing "I'm smarter than you" games and concentrate on the true message of the gospel.

He was changed (saved) in his unbelief. And he is grateful for it.

It's not "because" as in "I got a free pass because I was an ignorant unbeliever." It's "because" as in "Because I was an ignorant unbeliever, God showed mercy to me."

This makes a lot of sense -- thank you. So, then, the terms ignorantly and in unbelief more or less quantify the greatness of God's mercy towards Paul, rather than why God had mercy on him?

Equipped_4_Love

Apr 19th 2009, 01:36 AM

It was not whether Paul was doing right or wrong, but the fact that his heart was right toward God.

I'm not sure that Paul's heart was right towards God when he was killing Christians. From what I gather, he was prideful and puffed-up. He sincerely thought that he was doing the work of God, but his heart was not right before God, because obviously, he did not know the true God.

If your heart is right with God, he will lead you in the right direction, whether saved, or unsaved. If unsaved He will lead you to salvation.

But those who are unsaved -- their hearts are not right towards God. Are you talking about sincerity? Many cult members are sincere in their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they have attained true salvation.

It wasn't the fact that he was doing something in ignorance. If he had been killing Christians in ignorance, but had no heart toward God, he would'nt have been called.

Terrell

Is this really what this passage is saying? Can we use this as a means to judge how God moves today, or was this something that only applied in Paul's case?

jayne

Apr 19th 2009, 01:47 AM

This makes a lot of sense -- thank you. So, then, the terms ignorantly and in unbelief more or less quantify the greatness of God's mercy towards Paul, rather than why God had mercy on him?

That's what I get from the passage.

God doesn't have to explain why He shows mercy on anyone. But Paul wanted to testify as to how great that mercy was in reminding Timothy that he (Paul) was once, out of ignorance and unbelief, a blasphemer and persecutor.

tgallison

Apr 19th 2009, 02:41 AM

[quote=Welder4Christ;2048380]I'm not sure that Paul's heart was right towards God when he was killing Christians. From what I gather, he was prideful and puffed-up. He sincerely thought that he was doing the work of God, but his heart was not right before God, because obviously, he did not know the true God.

I would say you are right, I guess it has more to do with his seeking to be righteous. As you look at Job, that was his problem as well. I guess it has more to do with endurance in thinking you are doing right.

But those who are unsaved -- their hearts are not right towards God. Are you talking about sincerity? Many cult members are sincere in their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they have attained true salvation.

Not just about sincerity but, continuing in well doing. Remember, Paul was blameless before the law, even as he was crucifying Christians. Yet that was not the reason for his salvation. It was his acceptance of Christ that brought salvation. He was persecuted in the flesh when he was struck blind, yet he could have rejected Christ.

Is this really what this passage is saying? Can we use this as a means to judge how God moves today, or was this something that only applied in Paul's case?

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I believe every man has had the same opportunity for salvation throughout the world's history.

Equipped_4_Love

Apr 19th 2009, 02:55 AM

Not just about sincerity but, continuing in well doing. Remember, Paul was blameless before the law, even as he was crucifying Christians. Yet that was not the reason for his salvation. It was his acceptance of Christ that brought salvation. He was persecuted in the flesh when he was struck blind, yet he could have rejected Christ.

You know, I know that Paul says that, but I really see a contradiction there. First of all, the law says not to murder, and that's exactly what Paul was doing when he was killing Christians.

Secondly, Scripture tells us that no one is righteous according to the law -- not even the apostle Paul. Paul was condemned by the law, just like every other man.

Only one person was blameless before the law, and that man was crucified for our sins.

tgallison

Apr 19th 2009, 03:18 AM

[quote=Welder4Christ;2048443]You know, I know that Paul says that, but I really see a contradiction there. First of all, the law says not to murder, and that's exactly what Paul was doing when he was killing Christians.

I spoke out of turn when I said Paul was crucifying Christians. I don't know if he killed anyone personally, but he was responsible for their deaths, yet he stayed within the law. He had the Sanhedrin's authority to bring them to justice.

Secondly, Scripture tells us that no one is righteous according to the law -- not even the apostle Paul. Paul was condemned by the law, just like every other man.The scripture teaches that there is a righteousness of man, though it be as filthy rags. Job had this righteousness. He had to take off his righteousness and put on Christ's. Job said his righteousness was as a robe and a diadem, yet he was on his way to the pit.

Only one person was blameless before the law, and that man was crucified for our sins.Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments, and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

Christ was sinless. He was the only one sinless.

Best regards, Terrell

Equipped_4_Love

Apr 19th 2009, 03:29 AM

[quote]

I spoke out of turn when I said Paul was crucifying Christians. I don't know if he killed anyone personally, but he was responsible for their deaths, yet he stayed within the law. He had the Sanhedrin's authority to bring them to justice.

The scripture teaches that there is a righteousness of man, though it be as filthy rags. Job had this righteousness. He had to take off his righteousness and put on Christ's. Job said his righteousness was as a robe and a diadem, yet he was on his way to the pit.

Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments, and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

Christ was sinless. He was the only one sinless.

Best regards, Terrell

Okay...I see where you're coming from.

Thanks

crossnote

Apr 19th 2009, 06:11 AM

Rom 9:11-18
(11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
(16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

The bookends seem to sum it up. Why Paul? Only God knows why some and not all.

tgallison

Apr 19th 2009, 12:20 PM

Rom 9:11-18
(11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
(16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

The bookends seem to sum it up. Why Paul? Only God knows why some and not all.

God calls those he foreknows, because he foreknows everyone before their born. He foreknew that Esau would despise his birthright. If Esau could have willed his birthright he would have, for he was a proud man. God choose the weak things to confound the wise.

If what you say is true then Christ did not die for all men. Yet his desire was that all men come unto him.

The meaning of Paul's words are not as you portray them. Our lives are like an open book that can be seen from beginning to end, and end to beginning. God is not contained in our realm of time.

If what you are saying is what Paul meant, why did Paul say he was all things to all men that he might save a few. If it was by election he could have just sat and watched.

King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/romans/9.htm)
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. (Romans 9:11) He that calls, calls all men not just a few.

Election means we cannot will our way to heaven by good works, but by his son that calls. If you will hear, if you will seek, you will find him. God elected that those that believed in his Son might have eternal life. That is what election is all about.

Terrell

crossnote

Apr 20th 2009, 05:42 AM

God calls those he foreknows, because he foreknows everyone before their born. He foreknew that Esau would despise his birthright. If Esau could have willed his birthright he would have, for he was a proud man. God choose the weak things to confound the wise.

If what you say is true then Christ did not die for all men. Yet his desire was that all men come unto him.

The meaning of Paul's words are not as you portray them. Our lives are like an open book that can be seen from beginning to end, and end to beginning. God is not contained in our realm of time.

If what you are saying is what Paul meant, why did Paul say he was all things to all men that he might save a few. If it was by election he could have just sat and watched.

King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/romans/9.htm)
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. (Romans 9:11) He that calls, calls all men not just a few.

Election means we cannot will our way to heaven by good works, but by his son that calls. If you will hear, if you will seek, you will find him. God elected that those that believed in his Son might have eternal life. That is what election is all about.

Terrell

I am well aware of the Arminian position whiich you are espousing and which I of course don't believe is scriptural.
I do hold the tension that Christ died for all (Calvinists throw stones)and yet there is an election based on nothing God foresaw in us (Arminians throw stones). Why hold this seemingly contradictory position? Because that is what I believe is revealed in Scripture.
Your definition of foreknowledge goes against the definitions Greek scholars define it as. If it was mere 'knowing beforehand' who would chose Him then you have the problem of an inverted time warp going on. Let's see 'before time God looks down the corridors of time to a time where He already made us and we are living and sees we are choosing His Son so He backs up the time tunnel, rewinds time, and elects us because He foreknew (?) or knew after the fact and then starts the whole process of Creation, the Fall, His Redemption and our birth etc.'
No thanks. That's too convoluted for me.
I chose Him because He first chose me.